US Army to be cut to pre-WWII levels??!!

[Centurion40]

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/24/defense-department-to-cut-army-to-pre-ww-ii-size/?hpt=hp_t1

The Department of Defense plans to scale down the nation's Army to its pre-World War II size and do away with an entire class of Air Force attack jets in an attempt to cut military spending, which mushroomed after the attacks of September 11, 2001, according to reports.

The plan, backed by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, as first reported by The New York Times, positions the military to handle any enemy but will leave the armed forces with much fewer resources to take on lengthy missions abroad. The dwindled budget also reflects the current political climate, with a President who has pledged to pull back from extended and expensive wars abroad in an era of federal funding cutbacks.

The budget is to be presented Monday.

Hagel proposes cutting the Army to 440,000 to 450,000 troops, according to the Times. Army troop levels already were supposed to go down to 490,000, from their height of 570,000 after the 9/11 attacks.

The budget, does, however, protect funding for cyberwarfare and special operations, a reflection of the evolving way in which the U.S. has approached fighting overseas, using tactics that don't necessarily rely so heavily on land fighters. The proposal also preserves money for controversial and costly F-35 fighter planes.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

It fits the old proverb "Don't go fishing when your house is on fire." We should all focus defense budgets on what is really defense.

[Greybriar]

US Army to be cut to pre-WWII levels??!!

That will be one hell of a cut!

[Martok]

US Army to be cut to pre-WWII levels??!!

That will be one hell of a cut!

I was just gonna say, wouldn't that put our troop strength at less than 50,000?  I don't remember the exact numbers anymore, but I know our pre-WW2 army was pretty damn small. 

[eyebiter]

.

[Greybriar]

I was just gonna say, wouldn't that put our troop strength at less than 50,000?  I don't remember the exact numbers anymore, but I know our pre-WW2 army was pretty damn small.

According to this:

US Army and Air Force Strength 1938-1941

Total US Army Air Force (Air Corps) Personnel
July 1, 1938 - 21,000
July 1, 1939 - 22,000
July 1, 1940 - 51,000
July 1, 1941 - 151, 000
Dec 7, 1941 - 300,000

Total US Army (excludes Air Corps) Personnel

July 1, 1938 - 161,000 + National Guard (Not inducted) : 200,000
July 1, 1939 - 161,000 + National Guard (Not inducted) : 200,000
July 1, 1940 - 240,000 + National Guard (Not inducted) : 200,000
July 1, 1941 - 1,310, 000
Dec 7, 1941 - 1,344,000

If anyone knows of a better source, I would appreciate it if they would provide a link to it.

[skeptical.platypus]

Anybody know offhand what the "entire class of air force attack jets" they are doing away with? Warthog follow-on?

[Staggerwing]

Not just the follow-on but the actual A-10 itself. All of them. Bye-bye. No more loitering with intent. :(

[skeptical.platypus]

So you're saying prolly not a lot of A-10 flight sims in the pipeline?

[Silent Disapproval Robot]

I listened to an interview on the radio last week where a snooty Ivy League type (his name was Llewellyn) discussed the future of warfare with some Pentagon/DARPA guy.  His belief was that with the proliferation of cheap, easy to produce high precision, semi autonomous weapons systems, the US system of waging war was no longer viable.  He said that the US likes to deploy massive resources as close to the combat zone as possible in order to establish air supremacy and support systems for the guys on the pointy end.  He felt that drones, smart weapons, etc would mean that things like air bases, carrier groups, supply depots, and artillery parks would be very vulnerable.  He said that large standing armies would be a thing if the past.  Perhaps these cuts are a validation of his assertions?

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

I listened to an interview on the radio last week where a snooty Ivy League type (his name was Llewellyn) discussed the future of warfare with some Pentagon/DARPA guy.  His belief was that with the proliferation of cheap, easy to produce high precision, semi autonomous weapons systems, the US system of waging war was no longer viable.  He said that the US likes to deploy massive resources as close to the combat zone as possible in order to establish air supremacy and support systems for the guys on the pointy end.  He felt that drones, smart weapons, etc would mean that things like air bases, carrier groups, supply depots, and artillery parks would be very vulnerable.  He said that large standing armies would be a thing if the past.  Perhaps these cuts are a validation of his assertions?

Probably. Stated more directly, you could say that old fashioned war was based on the advantage of the unknown position of attack. Against a modern information rich state, the advantage goes back to the defender. Anyone with extended supply lines will have them cut, destroying the majority of the attacking force. Would you attack knowing the enemy has fog of war turned off?

[OJsDad]

Probably. Stated more directly, you could say that old fashioned war was based on the advantage of the unknown position of attack. Against a modern information rich state, the advantage goes back to the defender. Anyone with extended supply lines will have them cut, destroying the majority of the attacking force. Would you attack knowing the enemy has fog of war turned off?

So, what happens when the first thing the other guy does is to take out your information gathering ability.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

Probably. Stated more directly, you could say that old fashioned war was based on the advantage of the unknown position of attack. Against a modern information rich state, the advantage goes back to the defender. Anyone with extended supply lines will have them cut, destroying the majority of the attacking force. Would you attack knowing the enemy has fog of war turned off?

So, what happens when the first thing the other guy does is to take out your information gathering ability.

Like the Chinese demo of destroying their own satellite. A clear statement that anyone attacking gets all their satellites, all comms killed. You have to assume all G8 states have focused on the same capability. You stay on your own land, you keep information flowing. You go "adventuring" you become isolated.

It's a stabilizing situation IMO. It pushes State to State interactions to trade and diplomacy. A more mature world.

[OJsDad]

Probably. Stated more directly, you could say that old fashioned war was based on the advantage of the unknown position of attack. Against a modern information rich state, the advantage goes back to the defender. Anyone with extended supply lines will have them cut, destroying the majority of the attacking force. Would you attack knowing the enemy has fog of war turned off?

So, what happens when the first thing the other guy does is to take out your information gathering ability.

Like the Chinese demo of destroying their own satellite. A clear statement that anyone attacking gets all their satellites, all comms killed. You have to assume all G8 states have focused on the same capability. You stay on your own land, you keep information flowing. You go "adventuring" you become isolated.

It's a stabilizing situation IMO. It pushes State to State interactions to trade and diplomacy. A more mature world.

Yah, because the Chinese and Indians haven't been ripping off other counties technologies.  You know, like people act in a mature world.

So, what happens when China decides it want's to annex Korea.  Their comms are secure with land lines but anyone trying to assist Korea may be in a world of hurt. 

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

Send God a letter telling him how cruel his universe is.

What would you rather, all advantages to the attacker so every tin pot dictator tries to annex the world? The US has always been protected by the oceans on each side. Would you rather that benefit did not exist?